Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review

Sony rejuvenated the premium compact market in 2012 when it introduced the Cyber-shot DSC-RX100. The RX100 took a 1"-type sensor and relatively fast zoom lens and put it into a body that can slip into your pocket. Every year since has seen the arrival of a new RX100 model. The RX100 II added a new BSI CMOS sensor and hot shoe. Last year's RX100 III lost the hot shoe but gained a faster (but shorter) lens and clever pop-up EVF. The latest model inherits all of those things but adds a new stacked CMOS sensor that, according to Sony, is literally years ahead of the competition.

While we'll get into the technology behind the new Exmor RS stacked CMOS sensor below, here are the major benefits. All the camera's main capability increased come from the enhanced speed of the new sensor. This translates into incredibly fast continuous shooting (16 fps to be exact) and high frame rate video (up to 960 fps), as well as support for 4K video recording with full pixel readout. And, when the Exmor RS is used in electronic shutter mode, the faster readout means there's less of a delay between starting to read the sensor and finishing: meaning rolling shutter is essentially eliminated.

We'll look at the ways that Sony is trying to turn fast readout into photographic benefits throughout this review. For now let's take a look at the RX100 IV's standout features:

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV key specifications

20.1MP 1"-type stacked CMOS sensor

F1.8-2.8 24-70mm equivalent Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens

Optical image stabilization

1/32000 sec max shutter speed (1/2000 using mechanical shutter)

16 fps continuous shooting (with metering and focus fixed at the first shot)

Slow motion video recording up to 1000 fps (960fps in NTSC mode)

4K (UHD) video recording with full sensor readout and bit rates up to 100Mbps

All of the tried-and-true features from the RX100 III have made their way to the Mark IV, including its 24-70mm equivalent F1.8-2.8 lens, tilting 3" LCD, ND filter, and Wi-Fi. The body is identical except for the lettering on the top.

Everything else is an upgrade, mostly due to the new sensor. The non-sensor-related features include an electronic shutter, Picture Profiles including S-Log2 support, higher video bit rates, and a sharper EVF. The RX100 IV also has more advanced Auto ISO control.

Card requirements:

Because so many of the RX100 IV's features produce large amounts of data, you can only use all its features if you use specific SD cards. The main limitation isn't just one of speed, it's the size of file that the card can cope with. Only one of the five cards in the picture below allows the full use of the camera's capabilities (and it's not the fastest).

The RX100 IV's high frame rate and high bitrate movie modes create large files, so you need to use an SDXC card to use them. It doesn't matter how fast your card is or if it uses a UHS interface: if it says SDHC on the front, it won't allow you to use these modes.

Then comes the question of speed. A conventional SDXC card rated as Class 10 or an SDXC UHS-I card rated at U1 (which is an equivalent speed rating), will allow you to shoot HFR video and X AVCS video at up to 60Mbps. To shoot 4K or 1080/120p at 100Mbps, you'll need a UHS-I (or II) card rated as speed class U3.

Card Type

High Frame Rate Video

X AVCS video up to 60Mbps

X AVCS video 100Mbps

SDXC Class 10

Y

Y

N

SDXC UHS-I or II Class U1

Y

Y

N

SDXC UHS-I or II Class U3

Y

Y

Y

SDHC Class 10

N

N

N

SDHC UHS-I or II Class U1

N

N

N

SDHC UHS-I or II Class U3

N

N

N

In short: you'll need to buy an SDXC UHS I or II card rated as speed class U3 in order to make full use of the camera. A (sarcastic) round of applause to the SD Card Association for making all of that so clear.

As you can see, the RX100 IV blows away its predecessor in all but two areas. One is battery life, which is about 14% lower than the RX100 III. Something that's gone up is the price, which is nearly $1000.

Exmor RS stacked CMOS sensor

In case you haven't noticed, the biggest story on the RX100 IV is its new Exmor RS stacked CMOS sensor. But first, a history lesson.

Original (front-side illuminated) CMOS sensors, such as the one found in the original RX100, had both its photo-diodes and image processing circuitry in one layer. The RX100 II switched to a BSI, or back-illuminated sensor, which Sony branded as Exmor R. This technology flipped the chip over to push most of that circuitry to the back (hence the name). This allowed for a larger surface on which to capture light, which in turn improves the signal-to-noise ratio, allowing for a noticeable improvement in both still and video quality.

The 'stacked' design frees up space to move the high-speed processing circuitry [2] from the edge of the chip, to behind the pixels themselves [1]. This more extensive circuitry and its proximity to the pixels is what gives the Exmor RS its additional speed.

Then, to prevent the Bionz X image processor being overwhelmed, Sony has built some DRAM memory [3] into the back of the sensor, to act as a buffer.

The Exmor RS sensor on the RX100 IV takes things one step further, building up the sensor by essentially gluing layers together. This creates more space behind each pixel so that the high speed processing circuitry can be fitted into the middle of the chip, rather than the data having to work its way to the edges, first. This allows much faster data readout (Sony says more than five times the speed of the existing Exmor R sensor).

However, since the Bionz X processor can't cope with all this additional data, Sony has also built some DRAM memory into the back of the chip, acting as a buffer to store the data and feed it to the image processor at a speed it can handle. This increased speed helps explain many of the features Sony has wrung out of the camera: reduced rolling shutter, 4K video, high frame rate video, faster continuous shooting and Dual Record.

RX100 concept and potential was exciting and making sense from the start. It's one of those that today is copied by other manufactures in their versions.One petty remark: MLU and EFC shutter in DSLRs is not a workaround, it's a solution. Our views or preference of one concept over the other is another matter.

One major CAVEAT about this camera: no weather proofing will mean that it is not suitable for use in high humidity areas. Sony`s RX series have proven to be very sensistive to humidity (see numerous online postings about this). It is one thing to show how good a camera is when new. It is another thing to show how well it will resist abuse and sustained action in varying environments.

Weather proofing is absolutely not needed on cameras in high humidity areas. I have used over the past 18 years a total of 16 digital cameras, ranging from P&S to prosumer to superzoom to DSLR to mirrorless to RX, and have had no problems shooting in extreme humidity (I live in S. Florida which has the highest humidity in the US and travel regularly to South and Central America and the Caribbean). My current unsealed DSLR is 4 years old, and my oldest still-working camera is 12 years old - its whole life spent in humidity.What is likely the culprit is people who don't take basic precautions in allowing a badly fogged camera to equalize before shooting - which is a common issue for people traveling to humid places with all brands of camera, who have no experience with transferring regularly between cold air conditioned interiors to massively humid exteriors. I've even seen weather sealed cameras fail when badly treated in this way.

Well, that's not entirely true. Sometimes or often you won't be able to, but many times you absolutely will.

For example, there's no way a 1"-type sensor camera could capture tones with as much SNR (or cleanliness, in a sense) as what you see in this D810 shot.

But then again, in very good light, even iPhone images look good, so RX100 images will be very close to DSLR quality in certain cases. 'Cleanliness' of an image (high SNR) is largely determined by how much light was captured, but above a certain threshold, it's hard to notice differences. This is why in bright light, often smaller sensor shots look almost as good as larger sensor shots.

However, a keen eye might still notice differences in good light images, e.g. being able to discern that few, if any, smaller sensor shots can have as much SNR as that linked photo above.

Low light shots, or pushed shadows of high DR scenes exposed for the highlights, are made up of less signal, & here's where you'll start seeing differences in cameras of different sensor size: a larger sensor will generally collect more light for any given portion of the scene, b/c there's more surface area sampling that area of the scene. The exception to this is when you can compensate for the smaller surface area of a smaller sensor by giving it more light, e.g. by using a longer shutter speed b/c you're able to due to IS (or, say, a faster lens). This was one of the points I was making in the conclusion. This only works up to a certain extent though, as pixels have finite capacities, so you can't arbitrarily just keep giving a smaller sensor more and more light - it'll blow. Hence, generally speaking, larger sensors have more potential, but the reality is that sometimes there are real tradeoffs and so lines can be blurred b/c of some of the considerations I raise above.

get out of here Cantards! we don't care of your insecurities! Any real photographer knows that 12bit or 14bit either lossy or lossless differences is negligible. Your canon jurassic old sensor has a trash DR. And what good is your 14bit raw file if you only print mostly in 4R photo size or worst you only upload it to flickr or facebook. Geeezzz... even a 16mp APSC sensor can print large sizes as large as your blanket and with no issues in details.

Canon sucks in IQ. And what good is lossless raw files when the autofocus of G7X sucks, slow buffer write, lots and lots of other delays...then there's the video..totally lame a** again. Soooo in the end...lossless becomes losers.

Er, all joking aside, we don't condone lossy only Raw. In a RX100, maybe it can slide, but in a $3200 pro-level a7R II, offering lossy only Raw that then drops to 12-bits (which costs dynamic range) in continuous shooting, or if you use Long Exposure NR, or if you're in Bulb mode, or if you're bracketing a HDR scene, etc., is kind of a big no-no, in my opinion anyway. Particularly that last one: imagine you're bracketing ±1 EV; how ironic would that be, as you might then end up having gained nothing at all over shooting a single Raw frame.

Don't quote me on that yet, please - we have yet to measure the actual dynamic range cost of 12-bit mode.

We're really hoping Sony's hard at work on a solution.

Ironically, 12-bit mode would be just fine for Canon DSLRs, but driving the ADCs of a FF Sony sensor in 12-bit mode is guaranteed to cost you some dynamic range, as you can't get more than 12 EV DR at the pixel level if you're driving the ADCs with 12-bit precision.

yes 14bit does matter to some and maybe you are right for a $$$ pro-level a7rII. But reality check...most printers like magazines will not print exactly the same IQ what it is on your monitor. Say you have 14bit sharp super high IQ photo and when you submit it to a magazine company the printing guys will still down size it and print it at 300DPI regardless of what quality or what lossless file you provide e.g. TIFF, it will still end up as 300 DPI in printers. So you want to keep high IQ 14bit lossless photo? then go it's ok but not good to upload it to sites as it might load very very slow and viewers of the site will close their browser if a large image is still loading after 5mins has past. In reality it doesn't matter at all bec. almost everyone won't know lossless or lossy they want clear and sharp enough images in magazines or billboards. So who would in a right mind a professional photographer give their client an underexposed photos..none bec. light is controlled for pros.

you see, what is wrong with you Sony fundamentalist "Goblins" is that you have this "at your face" attitude and don't realize that is only a camera, who cares? i bet my bottom $ that you still make average or below average photos with your Sony "divine miracle" camera. so, why don't you take a deep breath and cool off for a moment? good luck.

The reason I particularly think that switching to 12-bit is a shame is b/c one of the advantages of these Sony sensors is their increased dynamic range, and that advantage gets severely truncated when the camera switches to 12-bit mode.

It's not widely known or publicized, but if you're choosing these cameras for their high performance sensors, it's pretty relevant and unfortunate that that advantage just goes out the window if you shoot continuous, bracket, shoot in Bulb mode, or use dark frame subtraction.

We're 99% sure this is still an issue, along with lossy Raw, on the a7R II, unfortunately.

I agree with you Rishi, but for practical and real world experiences so far I haven't seen any big differences on lossy vs lossless vs 12-bit vs 14-bit raw. When I shoot I make sure there is proper lighting and when on studio lighting is controlled. But for rx100m4, this is a compact advance P&S so people who use this I'm sure will rarely use it for professional work and get the last bit of DR. They mostly use it for travel, family, personal and parties and etc. But not for professional work. But for A7RII maybe it's worth mentioning it but as I had said so far from experience I have seen no big difference.

Then you know there are instances where part of your image may be seriously underexposed. I am very interested to buy an A7RII but the compressed Raw issue sucks and misses the point of Raw. That is what happens when you make computer game machines more than cameras.

wrong! it's the technique and skills and mastery of the gadget that matters especially when using A7RII. Does your photos needs to be printed on large billboards? and even if it does do you expect regular viewers get their heads as close as the billboard and shout "Hey!!! I see artifacts on this part" seeesshh I doubt even one human will stare a billboard longer than 30mins not to mention billboards are mounted on high buildings and towers. Point is - be realistic. 14bit RAW is negligible in real world. If you shoot night scenes..get a tripod and proper exposure settings and a guru photographer gets the job done despite it's 12bit RAW. This is what happens when people live in a dream world of internet and read other's overnight experts facts and don't trust their real instinct and don't really go out and shoot in real world.

Even worse than lossy Raw (which affects harsh tonal transitions more than it simply affects underexposed tones, though it affects harsh tonal transitions in underexposed tones the most) is the drop to 12-bit mode if you so much as sneeze.

O.K., you all schooled me. Thank you. I was under the impression that Canon was already making the G series with sensors larger than 1/1.7" before the RX100 came out. I guess not. It appears they STILL aren't making a compact zoom camera with a bigger sensor than 1/1.7" huh? Weird.

Would you be able to have the camera turn on to a specific focal length every time? Or do I need to manually adjust that after powering on? 24mm is a lot less useful to me than 35mm so it'd be great if the camera can be set to 35mm

You can set one of the three Memory Recalls (MR) to the focal length you want (along with all the other settings), and it will be remembered next time you switch to it or turn the camera on with that MR selected.

Thanks for the rely BlueBomberTurbo,I never quite understand how MR works - so once I turn on the camera, MR works like Manual Exposure mode in the sense that I'd have full control of both my aperture & shutter speed?Would I have the ability to switch on to Aperture Priority mode at f4, 35mm, auto-SO, and minimum shutter of 1/250?

I'm planning to take one on my Japan trip where I will be carrying it in my coat pocket (both cameras can fit in fine). I'm also new to photography but I'm willing to learn; I think the manual adjustments in the LX100 will be helpful for learning.

Here in Australia, the LX100 is $800 while the RX100 IV is $1200.

Due to pricing, a large sensor and size not being a concern, the LX100 seems like the superior choice. However, this review has made me start considering the RX100 IV again.

Well, you must ultimately test out the cameras yourselves at the shop, both LX100 and the RX100IV. No one can answer this question but you, after you it's your unique needs and take on these cameras that matter most...

RX100 is a more capable camera, with newer technology, and Sony is leading the field. However, the LX100 has the viewfinder in a more usable location, and the manual controls of the LX100 really do make photography a more enjoyable experience and the camera more functional.

Why would you pick a 12 MP camera over a 20 MP camera? The Sony gets the win here, for sure. This is not from experience with both, but just the fact that the 12 MP photos probably won't be able to compete with the 20 MP photos in most situations. Yes, sometimes you will shoot at ISO 800 or above, but very rarely, unless you only go out at night or shoot exclusively indoors or something. I'd pick the Sony RX100 IV for sure . . . though the price is a bit high.

Had the LX100 and RX100III, sold both and have now the RX100IV. As nice as the LX100 is in terms of manual controls, if I want to carry a camera the size of the LX100 (coat pocket or small bag) I do want better IQ, resolution and performance and a Sony a6000 or EM5II with selected primes would be my choice. In your case, I agree that the manual adjustments of the LX100 could be useful for learning. Tough decision.

Try out both cameras to see how the cameras feels in your hands. Any problems with size? Any possibility of accidentally hitting a button on the back of the camera when you least expect to? How easy is it to zoom while holding the camera in one hand (if you do such things)?

In addition to the LX100, I would also consider the RX100 M3 and the Canon G7 X which closely matches the RX100 M3.

If you are going to Japan, why don't you buy the camera you want in Japan.You can buy Tax Free (8%) and all you have to do is to show the receipt at the airport.Be extra careful for the language choice, for Sony you have to get an export model.You do not get a much discount for RX100 M4 at the moment, but Panasonic you do.Have a nice trip and enjoy the hospitality there.

HowaboutRAW, I agree that overall DxO SCORES are not too useful, and even the individual subscores can be misleading. But if you look at their actual graphs of things like noise and dynamic range at ISO 100 - 12800 or whatever, that is useful information. It comes from tests much more carefully controlled and measured than real-world use can provide.

By the way: (1) I was not suggesting that the RX100-IV substantially improves on the RX100-III's noise or dynamic range performance, merely that I don't think DxO has tested the RX100-IV yet. (2) I have used the original RX100 and processed its raw files in Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro, and Sony Image Data Converter. I think it has a very good image quality-to-size ratio. Evidently the Mk. II added slightly better sensor performance and the Mk. III added a sharper, faster lens. I would love to have a Mk. IV, if I could justify spending $950 on it.

If the size difference doesn't matter to you the LX100 is probably a better bet. The sony is awesome in many ways but it's number one parlour trick is still the camera size / image quality ratio, and this contributes to the cost.

Also, usability suffers a bit as cameras get small beyond a certain point, particularly if you have big hands / fingers.

If you like the manual controls I don't think it is a hard decision at all.

Just pay a few bucks more and get the RX10 Mark II with the superior 8.66x zooming range and constant aperture optics. For video, that one has both microphone and headphone jacks, and also hopefully it does not have to take a 15 minute break after every 5 minutes of capturing UHD rez video.

"In 4K the camera can record up to 5 minutes of footage and the user should wait before re-starting... to allow the camera to cool down... but it shouldn't place too much of a restriction on videographers, who are likely to be cutting between multiple short clips."

But of course they would. Usual shooting workflow for video guys is 5 minutes of videoing, followed by a 15 minute break period, then 5 minutes of shooting followed by a 15 minute cooling-off period, then shoot for five then take 15, then... well, you get the picture.

It also makes shooting conversations, interviews, or performances impossible. 4K looks like a cool gimmick on a pocket cam, but as 4K handheld looks like crap you also need a pocket tripod or a pocket stabiliser.

Fair points. To be fair, though, the warp stabilized 4K footage is not too bad. But, yes, to be really useful, you'll want to shoot 4K on a pocket steadicam-like device: at 30p and the high resolutions of 4K, any sort of motion blur and/or judder from temporal undersampling is highly visible.

Stabilization of the footage, either in Premiere or using an actual steadicam, really helps here (with the latter obviously being a better solution).

Future implementations of 4K/60p, hopefully with digital image stabilization as well, will really bring a lot to 4K, IMHO. I always loved the cinematic look of 24p, but reviewing my 24 and 30p 4K footage, even the slightest bit of movement is so jarring. Switch to a slower shutter speed to drag the shutter, and the footage loses its sharpness, and this still doesn't solve the judder that remains from 24/30p simply being too low a sampling frequency.

I don't know Rishi, it's like they expect to see punchy techni-colour sparkles and sprinkles coming out of fairies' arses in every photos that this camera takes, otherwise it's an epic fail for them...

@MarcLee: I see, you mean those 'milky blacks' in his videos? Yeah, I hate those looks too. But it's to do with colour grading, nothing to do with the camera. With RAW images, you can get natural results with a little Lightrooming and nothing else. I say this with confidence using my RX100 and RX100IV performs similarly so far... As for those drab beach front pictures you talk about, I don't see any problems on my 5-year-old Sony vaio laptop 16.4' monitor...

I'm not sure what you mean - in most of the images I process, I make sure I use the full histogram, which means I make sure some tones are down near clipping, if not actually clipped. Unless, of course, the image is meant to be drab/low contrast.

It never ends at shadow pushing. You first push shadows to decrease global contrast to have a better starting to point to work from. You then have to reintroduce local contrast by applying selective tone curve edits.

That's how high contrast scenes have to be processed today b/c of the low brightness/DR of our output devices.

I definitely don't like drab, low contrast stuff, and I made it a point - for the images I edited in this review - to ensure images had contrast. You're right though that many of the samples gallery images are more drab, but that's b/c they were shot on drab, cloudy days...

Out of curiosity, what gamma is your monitor calibrated to? Also, if you used a spectrophotometer for calibration, chances are it's raising your blacks/shadows. I've found a number of spectrophotometers do this, and I think it's b/c they're not very sensitive to darks (compared to colorimeters), so they end up creating profiles that raise shadows and, therefore, decrease global contrast.

My best calibration results of wide-gamut monitors is achieved by using a spectrophotometer to create a color correction matrix for my colorimeter, and then use the colorimeter with the matrix for profiling. That or increase the integration time for my spectrophotometer to make more accurate dark readings, but then profiling takes hours.

You are missing my obvious point, which is that when you shoot them side by side on the same day in the same conditions different cameras give you different results. And the processing choices people make are increasingly towards emphasising the HDR in all situations. Hence the reference to Philip Blooms's recent milky blacks.

I was looking at a cityscape photographer's web page recently and the FIRST thing he does on EVERY Raw is pull the shadows 100% up and the highlights 100% down. When what drew you to photograph a scene is the play of light, not detail, this is self-defeating.

How much you want your image to emulate the human eye's static DR versus its saccading DR is very much an artistic (not scientific) decision, and the current emphasis is on the latter ... while Caravaggio, Rembrandt, and film noir photographers for instance very much emphasised the former. For Ansel Adams, mid range greys were not the order of the day.

You are entitled to your opinion. For many of us photography is a hobby which provides enjoyment and relaxation. If a camera is frustrating to use then the final result is debased!It's like a classic dilemma, which is more important, the journey or the destination?

In the beginning, I actually started to have buyer's remorse, coming from my A6000. The lack of shutter sound/feel feedback was very off-putting. Its mechanical shutter is whisper quiet and soft, and there's no feedback at all for the mechanical shutter. After I got past that, the camera was really a blast to use. Its only real limit is zoom range. As long as you're not looking to shoot birds or far-off landscapes, this camera will do just about everything else you need it to. It even exceeds my A6000 in certain areas that aren't immediately obvious (new AF modes, bracketing levels, adjustable auto ISO shutter speed, etc.).

Handling the RX100 M4, I don't have near the "fun factor" I get when handling a fuji X100S. There's a bit of fumbling around when you want to adjust ISO or exposure compensation. But, there is a bit of wow factor when you use the EVF and I do like some of the display features in the EVF and rear display.

In the end I can live with the erogonomics/control layout of the RX100 M4. It is a compact camera that can do a bit more than the average compact. If I was able to carry something bigger, I'll be carrying my X100S or other Fuji gear.

Not everyone who likes photography is interested in only the end result. Many find the process itself (i.e. taking photos) to be a very enjoyable part of photography. And the camera, as a tool, can affect how much one enjoys the process.

Yes, it can, but you speak as though the enjoyment of the tool is somehow not at all linked to the quality of, and ease of producing, photos. We spent a good portion of the review talking about quality and the features on the camera that make it easier to remove the camera from the shooting experience, allowing you to focus on the picture-taking and photos itself. For example: eye AF, continuous shooting with effective continuous AF, ergonomic features like quick access to focus check, programmable auto ISO, etc. I thought I'd made it clear that these things make it easier and easier to produce top quality results, which itself aids in the enjoyment of the process - when I can focus on the subject and the moment and the capture, I immediately find myself enjoying the process. Apologies if I didn't get that across.

When the camera gets in the way of that process, I definitely think it worth pointing out, which is why we emphasized some of the ergonomic quirks in the manner we did.

@ludwik123: see my comment above, but to put in a nutshell, I believe the destination is a large part of the journey.

And the experience of a journey without a destination is, IMHO, far too personal to be applicable to any outside observer.

That's why the 'destination' (in this case: the end product, and how easy it is to get to that end product) gives us something concrete to anchor our discussion of the experience of using the camera around.

This is why I placed more emphasis on what about the camera helped the camera get out of the way so I could focus on the art, rather than on vague phrases like 'it felt good to shoot with', which I feel is so personal as to be questionable of value to the reader.

That said, I suppose you could say the advanced features of this camera & the manner in which they allow me to achieve better photos itself makes the camera very enjoyable to use, to me, despite the slight frustrations I experience with it (& every other camera out there, really!).

I guess my point is: say I say 'this camera was an absolute joy to use' whereas another person on our team, for the same camera, says 'I didn't find myself engaged in shooting with this camera' - how would either of those statements help you, if my colleague and I have totally different uses for the camera, which you, the reader, know nothing about?

Grounding my opinion of the camera in its capabilities and ability to create landscape photo X and moving subject photo Y, in my opinion, gives the reader something concrete to decide whether or not our assessment of the camera is relevant or not to him/her.

Just my opinion, of course. I'm curious to hear more thoughts on this, as this is a topic we always discuss in the office.

Speaking of 'fun factor' and ergonomics being personal: contrary to Marcos' opinion, I find the entire manner in which Fuji cameras work to be disengaging & confusing, as I prefer a mode dial & finer shutter speed increments. But how useful is that info to you?

To me the ergonomics of a camera and the final IQ are of equal importance. I want both!I have had some bad experiences. The worst was the samsung galaxy s3. That phone has sold tens of millions, had brilliant reviews. The camera IQ was among the best of its generation. it was a pain to use. Screen slightly too small for texting. Slugish in opening camera app. Touch screen focus was great. But the three settings I change most in use (exposure compensation, WB & iso) were hidden in the settings menu and I had to scroll thru a long menu on the touchscreen to reach them.the phone felt uncomfortable to use right from the start and that feeling got worse over time.

The improved AF (including Eye AF), the nicer viewfinder and details such as S-Log2 are all nice improvements. Even without the video capabilities, these might be worth the extra ~$150 over the M3, to you, but if you already have an M3 and would have to shoulder whatever depreciation it's suffered, plus the extra ~$150...

Good for you. I have the original RX100 for three years now, it's excellent but in stills and videos. I wanted 4k capabilities in the same form factor. RX100IV fit the bill perfectly. And I had it with a heavy discount which worked out the same price I got my RX100 three years ago. So I upgraded.

The price of the Sony RX100IV was S$1239 (£581), I bought my original RX100 at £500, but the RX100IV came with original Sony 94Mb/s SDXC U3 64GB, original Sony leather case and strap, original Sony external charger, tampered glass-coated protective LCD transparent cover, and an extra original Sony battery. That easily worked out to be the equivalent price (and discount) I am talking about, as I would have to get those extra accessories anyway. Hope that answers your question. But my friend was in the right place at the right time, so I am told now the shops in Singapore don't offer those 'freebies' any longer.

Something everyone should know... when shooting 4K the camera generates 5 minute clips max... then if you try and record again it generates a clip less then 3 minutes... then that's it... you have to let the camera cool down before it records anything else. A temperature warning light light comes on and it will either shut off the camera or disable the recording in 4K feature.

according to the specs, this does 4k full pixel readout without binning. probably too much heat generated in such a small body. other P&S probably does binning for 4k, LX100 (does it still qualify as a P&S) has 15-minute 4K limit, think it's close to full-pixel readout as well

the RX10 II has the same sensor in a larger body, doesn't have 5-minute limit for 4K (still have the same 29minute video recording limit due to EU laws)

It looks fantastic but sadly it's out of my price range these days. A very impressive piece of kit if you have the money though! This is pretty close to what people were describing as their dream compact a few years ago.

It's less than 1 EV worse than the LX100, as you can see in our studio comparison here.

Despite the LX100's sensor having twice the surface area of the RX100's, it doesn't use the full surface area for any given image. So the less-than-1-EV noise penalty for the 1"-type sensor in the RX100 IV is to be expected.

I looked at the E-M5II and the Sony, at 3200 and 1600, resp, and there is more detail lost and slightly worse noise with the Sony. In RAW. You can see it on the writing on the colour wheel, the black and white pages, the tubes of paint in the studio scene.

RichRMA: remember that lens performance in the studio scene is just one focal length, one subject distance. For the RX100 III/IV, it's not even the strongest focal length or subject distance of the camera's.

@Rishi - as you note, using the LX100 as the example is not exactly fair when discussing M4/3's sensor performance. For any given aspect ratio, the LX100 only uses 3/4 of the area of the M4/3 sensor in it. This means that instead of having double the sensor area of a 1" sensor the way a normal M4/3 camera does (nominal 1 EV), it only has 1.5x times as much.

So based on the LX100, you should really only expect 0.5 EV of improved performance. And that's if you assume the sensor performance is exactly at par, whereas the BSI sensor on the RX100 should give a (modest) improvement in performance.

There's almost twice as big a size ratio difference between a 1" sensor and an M4/3 sensor as there is between an M4/3 sensor an APS-C sensor.

From what I've experienced, it's about 2/3 stop off of my A6000 in terms of noise. About 0.5 stop less highlight recovery at base ISO, but the shadows are the same, if not slightly better because of an unresolved ACR glitch (gives A6000 green shadows past 2-3 stops at lower ISOs).

I like this camera but I don't want to upgrade from my old Sony RX100 because Image Quality is not improved much. So far I am satisfied with my RX100.and waiting for a new RX 100 with longer zoom (ex 24-200mm) and better image qaulity

Unless Sony has a major revolution in photosite technology, I don't think IQ will improve very much anytime soon. If they do create a true stacked sensor (multiple layers of photosites vs current multiple layers of components), that's probably the only way you'll see a sizeable improvement in something this small.

- Another category "Entry Level Large Sensor Compact Camera"? Really?IMHO, all Large Sensor Compacts are enthusiast by definition. Who else pays 1000$ in this category?

- The Multi USB port physically should support mic input (I believe an older version of the port actually reserved pins for mic input). No ext. mic therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.

- The RX100m3/4 lost a hot shoe but don't feature a sync port. And there is no excuse why the internal camera flash can't be switched to manual (w/o TTL pre flash) such that AT LEAST a remote flash can be triggerd optically. It cannot by simple oversight of Sony's part. No manual flash therefore should trigger a more prominent CONS comment.

Re: the scoring category, the 'Entry level...' category was created when it seemed possible that somebody might create such a camera. As you say, at nearly $1000, the RX100 IV isn't it. I've re-assigned it to the correct category.

@falconeyes: Can't you still trigger a slave unit optically with the built-in flash? I'd imagine you can dial Flash Exposure Compensation all the way down on the Sony or point it up, and have the slave unit turned up, to get most of the light coming from the slave external flash.

@RishiI tried many things and eventually gave up to use the RX100 in a wedding booth project. The problem is this:As most cameras, the RX100m3 (and I suppose the m4 is the same) uses TTL flash metering. This uses a short and weak pre flash and this pre flash triggers a studio strobe or slave speedlight.

Therefore, when the RX100 shots its image, the remote flash won't fire again (too fast). This isn't a matter of relative flash output, but of unability to sync. The obvious solution is a manual flash mode with no TTL flash metering. But despite its full menu, thisoption is simply missing. A bad oversight which deserves a more harsh voice of criticism, I think.

BTW, there are external optical slave triggers with tunable delay. I tried to use those but haven't been successful. Even for my Nokia 808 Pureview I could solve that by activating red eye pre flash which moves the TTL pre flash away from the main flash. Not so for Sony :(

Addendum ...... maybe, you can verify this wasn't changed for the m4:1. no "manual flash" menu option of flash mode2. Setting everything to M, incl. ISO, WB and AF, still keeps the flash in TTL auto mode, firing a pre flash.The preflash is visible by a remote slave firing visibly but which isn't firing in the image.

Mine don't have it and both strobes and flashes are from best brands.Looking for an optical slave trigger with that option and couldn't find one which actually worked. It is a significant problem in reality a 1000$ really shouldn't impose.

Please, anybody who didn't actually got the RX100m3/4 to work with a slave flash could stop replying? Thanks.My point was that a 1000$ camera unable to trigger a slave flash should earn a bigger point of criticism in a review. That's all.

The actual topic has already been discussed in the Cybershot forum here at DPR, with no workable resolution.

Falk I wasn't speaking out of theory - I've successfully fired my Calumet Genesis and Yongnuo using optical triggers with every camera I've ever owned that has an onboard flash, from a lowly Canon S90 through an RX100 to a D800. I don't own an RX100 any more but here's a photo I just took triggering my Yongnuo YN-560III with an RX10M2:

I have no doubt that this camera is "the most responsive and enjoyable". It is clearly a very interesting ans innovative imaging instrument.IMO, there is a disconnect between the final score "85% Gold Reward" and IQ. This unique score is misleading because many readers think that best score = best IQ.

Again, I truly believe this is a great and innovative tool; but I also believe that there are less fancy compact cameras that generate better still images. Your scoring method is too simplistic for an instrument with so many features.

I'm struggling to think of another compact that comes close in terms of image quality. In daylight there are cameras that will make more attractively coloured JPEGs but the large sensor and fast lens mean that the low light capability and dynamic range of the RX100 IV are really hard to beat.

If it really fit in a reasonably sized pocket, I'd agree with you. As it is, it's much better than other, cheaper cameras of similar size and not as good as slightly larger cameras. It's not particularly light weight, either. I wonder, in the summer, do people really carry these in a shirt pocket or even a pants pocket? Maybe they do, considering the size of cell phones.

I second that approach. There should be separate scores, one for Still Images, one for Video, one for Overall. For me, from still image quality perspective, this IV is similar to III, so for a person who is interested solely in that, it does not make sense to spend extra money on IV. For the lay user, rather than sorting through comments to find that out, a Still Image score would help make decision faster.

As an end user, I am interested in Still Image Quality score ratio to List Price. If there is a 2x difference in List Price and the Still Image Quality difference is 85 vs 90, then the leap in image quality does not justify price. If however the Still Image Quality difference is 80 vs 90 and only 1.5x difference in Price, then I might go for the higher still image quality camera.

I agree. The extra reach of the original coupled with great IQ makes for a compelling camera that I have no need nor wish to replace. I am not interested in video. And the lack of an external charger is, as far as I'm concerned, an advantage - charging it while driving for instance is so convenient. I too bought a second battery but I have never used it.

What's the charging speed like? One of the concerns with older cameras that charged via USB was the relatively low charging current supplied by USB 1&2 ports but now we have USB 3 and of course Apple and Android chargers that all supply upwards of 1 amps. I wonder what the maximum input current is for charging?

The built in charger might be fine for some, but it is a nuisance for those who want to charge a battery while using the camera, or charge multiple batteries at the same time.

Of course, the problem is easily solved by "buying a charger" but you shouldn't have to buy anything else once you spend $1,000 for a camera. It should be in the box, and you can use it if you want to or just leave it in the box.

The charging is pretty slow, so an external charger (which I think charges faster) is definitely useful.

That said, I understand both sides of the argument. If not having a charger in the box drives down the overall cost and that's reflected in the sales price, then those who don't care for the charger benefit, while those who do care for it don't really lose anything, other than the time required to actually buy the new charger.

But, yeah, at this price point, it's not unreasonable to expect a charger.

"What would be great would be a charger that also has a USB port so you can use it standalone or charge one battery externally and charge the one inside the camera simultaneously." --> I bet there are 3rd party solutions?

> What would be great would be a charger that also has a USB port so you can use it standalone or charge one battery externally and charge the one inside the camera simultaneously.

Sony does have an official charger (google "ACCTRDCX") that chargers a battery externally via USB port.... not exactly what you're looking for, but you can use that charger + a 2-port USB dongle, charge both camera and ACCTRDCX together

I haven't seen one so far, there's lot's of external chargers that run on USB instead of a regular mains plug but I haven't seen one that can plug into the mains, charge a battery and also have a pass through USB port so you could plug the camera in and charge an additional battery.

Basically the standard Sony external charger but with a USB socket built into it too.

My feeling... if I can buy a charger from Amazon for less than $20, then the charger should be included in the box with a $1,000 camera. They include all sorts of junk with a camera that no one ever uses. A charger might be a lot more useful than a video cord with RCA connecting plugs.

Cutting corners to shave the cost makes sense for a $300 camera, but not for one that sells for almost $1,000.

Sorry to gloat, but when my friend got me my rx100IV in Singapore a couple of weeks ago, it came with the original Sony 64GB SDXC card (95Mb/s U3 version), with the original Sony leather case and an external charger by the seller. Competition over there in Singapore seemed really strong, and all in all, the camera worked out the same price as when I got my RX100 three years ago without the freebies in the UK.

I have the Sony BC-TRX charger which I do recommend.1. It charges a RX100m* via USB2. It powers a RX100m* from mains, for extended sessions of usage (the original charger does not!)3. It charges an external battery quickly.

I agree that an external charger should be included for the price but at the same time it seems that cameras that come with an external charger should also include USB charging built into the camera so it's a wash between the two.

@fatdeeman That's true. But with the switch to alter between the two modes, it really is a non issue for me. BTW, when powering the RX100, its screen becomes brighter too. Seems that in battery mode, the RX100 is in some sort of energy saving mode.

Dual Rec is an option, but no you can't simply extract from 4K footage in the manner Panasonic allows you to.

We didn't test Dual Rec b/c of the limitations it places on video AF, stabilization, and other functions. We think it'll be of limited use and that most shooters will opt to shoot either video or stills at any given moment.

Thanks for the reply. Do you have any idea when the new Adobe Camera Raw update will be made available to the public? I'm one of those fools who have had this great camera since it came out on July 3, but typically I only shoot on raw format, therefore, its not doing much right now.

I tried CaptureOne, its watered down and I didn't to pay when for software that I most assuredly wouldn't use again once the ACR was updated, since I'm already paying for the Adobe Creative Cloud. And wouldn't you know it, the day after DPReview reviewed the camera, Adobe Camera Raw 9.1.1 is released. :) I am excited to finally use this camera to its full potential, its a great pocket camera- a supplemental to my D810.

I agree that in terms of ambitious design, as opposed to taking pictures, the Sony is a marvel. Being stuck on the image quality thing, I think Sony is almost there. Looking at the wide angle corners, the G7X is so bad even DPR would have trouble praising it. The Sony looks to be just about acceptable with some stopping down. I wouldn't pay $1000 for this image quality but it's not bad, and for now, nothing as small as the Sony can do any better.

abr: "I wouldn't pay $1000 for this image quality..." You're not! Your are paying $1000 for the great image quality of a APSC Nikon D90 dslr, with and incredible sharp & bright normal lens that will cost you $1000 minimum for any ILC in a camera that fits into your pocket. + Premium Movie features.

Agreed....quality is underwhelming..shots with lifted shots have smartphone quality to it!! Its amazing to what lengths manufacturers can go to give success to their products...pay few lads for a polished review and you are all set for camera of the year award at dpreview.

So Rishi, you can see into shadows eh? Is it because you are one of the few people who actually gets his daily requirement of eye-strengthening dark leafy greens and carrots? Or do you just walk around with a miner's headlamp on all day?

And here comes the naysayers out in droves already, and gleefully and baselessly attacking dpreview of corruption in their review of this camera (which obviously isn't their brand of choice so they must be bad)...

to each his own...we don't want and need your trolling bashing opinions here!!! go back to your cave trolls! thank you dpreview in reviewing RX100M3, it makes a big difference to know the product very well before buying it.

No bright image stabilized primes? Dudes, what about the Canon 24, 28, and 35mm IS lenses? Everyone makes a 100 or 105 image stabilized macro. Both Nikon and Canon have their the 200 F/2s. Some of the lenses are f/2.8 but that's still quite a bit faster than the "equivalent" lens on the Cybershot.

Fair point. I've updated to the text to specify that bright wide primes often don't offer IS, tho the 35/2 is a notable exception. The 28 is F2.8, & I was considering 'bright primes' to be F2 & brighter. The F1.8 version doesn't have IS.

But good point, & thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Note I did suspect that paragraph to be contentious, but I did want to make the point somewhere that I somewhat surprisingly (though not anymore) come back with casual low-light images from my RX100 III, and other compacts, being as good in terms of noise as similar shots from a D810 and/or 5DS R with 24/1.8-ish combo. I tried to explain why, b/c I think it's an interesting thought experiment. Partly b/c of the higher shutter speeds the FF DSLRs need due to lack of IS and moving parts, & the smaller absolute F-numbers needed to get around DSLR PDAF focus inaccuracies.

Larger sensor mirrorless cameras w/ e-shutters and in-built IS and more accurate AF at F1.8 of course flip things around!

There is an old saying that your British colleagues are familiar with which applies here: What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. In other words, it all comes out equal in the end. Every system has its pluses and minuses. We live in a golden age of photography!

Sony's current crop of cameras actually put out pretty incredible JPGs. If you're going for realism, tweak a few settings, and it'll look 95% like what you saw in real life. My A6000 was the first camera I actually didn't mind saving some JPGs from, and the RX100 IV joins it. I previously shot Nikon, and couldn't stand their JPG colors, no matter how I changed the settings.

Yeah and a viewfinder counts for something (the Fuji has none), a camera plus lens (E-M10 plus 20mm f/1.7) being 74% thicker, 46% taller and 68% heavier counts for something, as does a more efficient (per area) sensor (the previous BSI sensor was already 22% more efficient than the one in the E-M10).

Noisiness depends on exposure, so you have to be careful and not compare random images. This is why we have a controlled studio comparison, which shows a very slight improvement in noise over the MkI in Raw.

That said, JPEG noise reduction does seem to have been dialed back, so you are correct in that you may find SOOC Jpegs a bit noisier.

We prefer this though, as much more detail is retained in SOOC Jpegs at high ISOs. In fact, who knows, it may have been because we called out previous Sony cameras' aggressive noise reduction that they dialed it down a bit here. :)

I disagree with the conclusion that this camera can sometimes catch up with dSLRS in low light, etc. The resolution is so far behind dSLRs, I am talking about 20-24mp dSLRs only, that even some mirror shock would get you better resolution than this camera on a steady tripod. I just snapped a few shots at 1/15 sec at 200mm with my 21mp FF, one of those crops is in my gallery.

Also, fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed, but they are really fast by 1" standards. All decent f/4 zooms have IS and they collect more light than the lens of this camera even at its widest (and fastest) setting. They are much sharper, as well.

As that section clearly says, we were only talking about noise here. I'll put in a line reminding the reader that, of course, noise isn't everything.

"fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed, but they are really fast by 1" standards."

The entire point of our statement is that the F4.9 equivalent lens on the RX100 IV can be compensated for by a 2-3 EV longer shutter speed than a FF camera when shooting handheld, which'd then allow it to catch up to F2 equivalent performance, especially when you consider the sensor in the RX100 IV is ostensibly of a higher efficiency than most sensors found in FF.

That doesn't allow it to catch up in DR compared to a similar performance FF, but in low light SNR 18%, it often can. And you get extra DOF to boot. I have a side-by-side example of the RX100 IV & 5DS + 24-35mm F2 shooting the same scene, a half hour post-sunset, handheld. They end up having equivalent noise performance, but the RX100's image's extended DOF is desirable in this case.

Yes, but even if you're to use F4 IS zooms, the conclusion doesn't change: the RX100 IV would still catch up to the FF performance, as you'd use:

FF: F4, 1/10s | ISO 500
RX100 IV: F1.8 | 1/10s | ISO 100

... yielding almost equivalent image quality in terms of noise. That's the point.

And yes I know the lens stops down as you zoom in, but when I'm shooting in low-light, I keep the lens zoomed out b/c I know I'm light-limited and don't wish to deprive the sensor of more light. I've updated the text to clarify 'on the wide end' but, again, this doesn't change the overall conclusion of this segment.

In fact, it's not unreasonable to simply treat the camera as a 24mm F4.9 equivalent fixed-lens camera in low light.

Every camera made is a bundle of compromises where the designers made decisions about which compromises were worth making, given the rationale for the camera. No camera can be the best at or do everything. I suspect this camera's reason for existence has nothing to do with shooting products in studio, fashion for Vogue, or 30x40 inch landscape prints, which is the gist of your arguments. But it's not designed as a DSLR replacement. For a camera that's small enough that it can always be in your pocket (my first generation RX100 pretty much lived in my sports jacket pocket) it's an astonishingly good set of capabilities.

I gifted my first gen camera to a young aspiring photographer, and have been shooting a GM5 with a couple of light primes instead. As much as I like the results, it's not as easy to carry as the RX100. I suspect Sony's going to get some money from me soon.

If both cameras are shooting an image that's within the compromise envelope of the camera most compromised in the given situation, you won't be able to tell the difference. For example, at high ISO the small sensor camera is going to have more issues than a full frame DSLR. Same thing for dynamic range, raw bit depth, and so on.

But, more important - the shots I got with the RX100, because it was right there in my pocket when the incredible light happened, or a great moment between two people happened, I wouldn't have gotten with a DSLR. You can't get the shot without a camera, and I don't have room for a D800E with a 24-70 in my work backpack. Much less in my jacket pocket.

This camera's bundle of compromises are optimized for always being in your pocket, and still being good enough for a wide range of situations. And on many fronts, probably kicks daylights out of the D2X that was state of the art not that long ago.

Jeff there are cameras with IBIS which stabilize fast primes, everything in the DSLR world isn't Canon or Nikon.

as bright primes don't offer image stabilization, and bulky mirrors and shutters tend to require higher shutter speeds or workarounds like mirror up and electronic first curtain (when they're available ).

But here's the thing. I don't trust Sony. They just pulled out of South Africa entirely. Leaving thousands in the lurch. And the second hand shops are full of Sony. Amongst other things. Like new models of everything every few months. Like ungracious customer support. Like poor loyalty.

But they make great cameras. Granted. Maybe when they have great corporate ethics, I'll buy one of them. But I'm sure my opinion doesn't count for much, nor do I expect it to.

I used the RX100 2 and it was garbage for video if you ever intended to touch the zoom lever. Like a 3 second delay with any movements. It went sailing into the digital zoom and you could not turn that off. Just horrible compared to the sony hx30, not to mention the tiny zoom range. I wonder if any of that was addressed. There seems to be a big focus on its video capabilities with this model.

Since the RX100 first came out, Sony has introduced a total of four updated models to market and hasn't discontinued any of them. Should you save a few bucks and go with less than the latest-and-greatest? Find out which one is the right fit. Read more

A year of field tests have taken DPR Editor Barney Britton and series director Eric Becker into some challenging shooting environments, so for a change of pace, late last year the pair took the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV to the sun-soaked Yucatán peninsula. Read more

Late last year we asked you to vote on the outstanding products of 2015. We created four polls, covering lenses and cameras, including more than 50 products in total. With thousands of votes cast, and plenty of 'discussion' in the comments, we're ready to announce the winners! But the fun isn't over yet - now is your chance to vote on the winners and runners-up from each of the four categories, to determine the readers' choice award for best overall product of 2015 - click through to vote

Whether you're traveling the world or the next town over, having the right camera at your side makes all the difference. We've picked out our best bets for the photographer who wants to keep things simple by carrying a compact camera rather than one with interchangeable lenses. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.